International Relations In The Past

A state has its unique interests and aspirations (cultural, economic, or political). Its foreign policy is implemented in many ways to make sure that these interests are met. In the past, foreign policy has primarily been military-related. Today, with the spread of terrorism and the increase in global trade, the role of diplomacy has expanded. The United States is a leading nation in the field of diplomacy and the country has a long history of engagement in diplomacy. Unfortunately, America is also often at the forefront of world affairs, making the nation hesitant to commit its valuable resources to the maintenance of international peace and security.

How Is American Foreign Policy Managed?

American foreign policy is oftentimes criticized for its overreaches into space and warfare. Often this criticism is warranted since American action is often geared toward attaining national interests through military power and aggression. However, the expansion of American military power should not be confused with a decrease in American commitment to human rights. Many people will raise a hue and cry about the invasion of Iraq, but there was nothing wrong with the mission statement given by the US Central Command when it attacked Iraq. Those who opposed the war did not have a better argument than the one presented by the Bush administration.

Today, we have yet another case of the US being on the wrong side of history when it comes to its handling of human rights. The Bush administration’s uncharacteristically weak response to the abuses perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and the resulting sanctions placed on Iraq is sending a dangerous message to other nations. International solidarity is sorely needed in this day and age. However, human rights should never come into question during a military operation. The Bush administration made the mistake of confusing moral support for Saddam Hussein with American support for the Iraqi government.

In light of the Bush administration’s dismal performance on human rights, one might have hoped that our nation would turn its back on its friends, but the reality does not work in isolation. The United States must continue to support human rights defenders everywhere. This means unequivocally condemning the attack on Iraq and using every resource at our disposal to bring about a timetable for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. It also means demanding accountability from the Iraqi government and pressing other countries to protect and assist the victims of Saddam’s crimes against humanity.

What Action Did The Previous Governments Take?

The unfortunate reality is that the Bush administration has not effectively presented a case for its invasion of Iraq. The UN, which is itself largely toothless due to US maneuvering within the organization, is missing an important opportunity to strengthen its mandate of promoting global peace and security. It is time for the UN to beef up its diplomacy and capacity building in dealing with the growing global threat posed by non-state actors. There is no viable reason for the United States to continue supporting dictatorships in places like Iraq and Iran. If the US had taken a stronger stance on its regional partners – Turkey, Jordan, or others – it might have been able to stem the tide of Salafist rule and promote democratic change.

There are many practical limits to the Bush administration’s ability to shape the future of US international relations. However, the administration has proven that it does not trust its own capacity to negotiate and cut deals. As a result, it is busy trying to manage what other nations think of its efforts and how the UN is run. While there is no doubt that the United States supports human rights, promoting democratic societies, and fighting global poverty, it has failed to convince other international organizations that it is serious about its soft power leadership ambitions. Perhaps it is time to focus on substance rather than style when dealing with the world stage.